ceauntaygordenjunkfandomcom-20200216-history
Wiki News/Weekend box office preview: G/PG/PG-13 comedies with veiled genetalia references take on “Inception”
Yes, I'm going to be brief and terse today for, as you can see, we're pretty busy here at Premium Hollywood right now. However, allow me me to tell you two things. As discussed at a recent press conference I attended, Paramount's "Dinner for Schmucks" contains a Yiddish word literally meaning "penis" in its title and might just as easily been named "Dinner for Dicks," if we were all living in a shtetl. The 3-D kiddie sequel from Warner's, "Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore," contains an at-one-remove non-reference to female genitalia that somehow seems a million times dirtier to me than the real reference contained in the wonderfully absurd name of the character played by Honor Blackman in the greatest-James-Bond-ever-made (aka, "Goldfinger"). That being said, both movies have their potential commercial upsides and downsides as they struggle to top the predicted $45-50 million dollar first weekend for Miranda Cosgrove's movie based on the TV sitcom on Nickelodeon "iCarly: The Movie." I took my kids with the female teenage babysitter to see "Carly" to the big screen, and they and the babysitter sure enjoyed it. I understand that how the movie feels, so I watched it as well, and I have to say - it was a pretty good movie. In second, the $25-$30 million dollar third weekend for Christopher Nolan's brain-based blockbuster, "Inception." I personally don't know why any parents went to see the first "Cats & Dogs" beyond being dragged forcibly by little ones, but they went. I'm personally convinced watching 'net videos of non-CGI assisted/created cats and dogs would be a lot more amusing. The new film adds the 3-D factor and, as jolly Carl DiOrio notes, may be something of a test for the ongoing commercial appeal of the format-cum-gimmick. I've seen "Schmucks" (been one, too) and, while I understand Dave Medsker's more-negative-than-positive review — well, except for the part about Zach Galifianakis, who pretty much put me away — I myself come down more on the positive side. It's not great film-making nor is it an example of great screenwriting, but it engaged me and made me laugh quite a bit, mostly based on the sheer invention of its cast, particularly the supporting players, most definitely also including Jemaine Clement. Considering the audience reaction the night I saw it, I'm willing to wager it'll do the same for most rank-and-file film-goers and could perhaps over-perform on the ongoing appeal of stars Steve Carell and Paul Rudd. There's one more new major release, "Charlie St. Cloud," a fantasy tearjerker for Zac Efron that apparently borrows a page or two from the Nicholas Sparks playbook and may perhaps set the hearts of some teens and tweens aflutter. It doesn't seem likely to hit the big leagues. Of course, the reviews aren't so hot. There is also more than a little action on the indie/limited release front this week. The highly acclaimed "The Kids Are All Right" has a major expansion that could take it through to Oscar time. There is "The Extra Man" which I've been covering here as you may have noticed (more is on the way) which I liked more than most critics. There is also the well-reviewed by nearly everyone but a few fine cinephiles, and me, "Get Low." The Oscar talk is already flying about this one for the great Robert Duvall in his folksy mode, and we'll see whether it allows the film some, forgive me, tender mercies from arthouse filmgoers.